It's not that they evolved shorter wings, it's that having shorter wings is in the given environment more advantageous for survival. Thus those individuals with short wings are more likely to reproduce and reproduce more often, leading to even more short winged individuals in the population. And that change in the frequency of a trait in response to an environmental pressure is what evolution is.

In a scientific test, mice had their tails cut off. Generation after generation, these mice had their tails cut off.

After hundreds of generations, you know how many mice were born without tails?

None. None of them evolved the feature that their environment was forcing on them.

Now maybe these little birds in the wild evolved shorter wings over the course of 30 years. Or maybe they just got smart about staying away from cars on the highway. On the Galapagos Island, birds used to be indifferent or curious about humans. After their encounter with humans, they learned to be wary.

So are we talking about evolution in the space of 30 years, even when scientific studies have shown that environmental pressure does not influence such a change? Or are we talking about learned behavior?

WhyteRaven74:It's not that they evolved shorter wings, it's that having shorter wings is in the given environment more advantageous for survival. Thus those individuals with short wings are more likely to reproduce and reproduce more often, leading to even more short winged individuals in the population. And that change in the frequency of a trait in response to an environmental pressure is what evolution is.

Ed Grubermann:WhyteRaven74: It's not that they evolved shorter wings, it's that having shorter wings is in the given environment more advantageous for survival. Thus those individuals with short wings are more likely to reproduce and reproduce more often, leading to even more short winged individuals in the population. And that change in the frequency of a trait in response to an environmental pressure is what evolution is.

This strikes me as some researchers should swallow their pride and admit BS and that they were desperately trying to justify the car load of cash they were given.Based on that theory the European swallow should have shorter wings then the African as there is more cars in Europe then in Africa.// car totals based on a guess just like the article

WhyteRaven74:It's not that they evolved shorter wings, it's that having shorter wings is in the given environment more advantageous for survival. Thus those individuals with short wings are more likely to reproduce and reproduce more often, leading to even more short winged individuals in the population. And that change in the frequency of a trait in response to an environmental pressure is what evolution is.

That is what evolution is. People that understand the concept know this. It's the denailers who refuse to even try to understand the concept which have no clue whats going on. Take AAG here. Perfect example.

AverageAmericanGuy:In a scientific test, mice had their tails cut off. Generation after generation, these mice had their tails cut off.

After hundreds of generations, you know how many mice were born without tails?

None. None of them evolved the feature that their environment was forcing on them.

Now maybe these little birds in the wild evolved shorter wings over the course of 30 years. Or maybe they just got smart about staying away from cars on the highway. On the Galapagos Island, birds used to be indifferent or curious about humans. After their encounter with humans, they learned to be wary.

So are we talking about evolution in the space of 30 years, even when scientific studies have shown that environmental pressure does not influence such a change? Or are we talking about learned behavior?

Birds are smart. Bird-brained evolutionists, not so much.

Your comment was simply for fun right? Shrug. Birds may be smart but they are not able to postulate and investigate theories as the "bird-brained evolutionists" are. I recall papers where dandelion plants evolved shorter flower stalks in response to lawn mowing within a similar timeframe. Am pretty sure the dandelions did not learn new behaviour. So within 30 years would not be impossible. Regardless, would think it to be a question of number of generations rather than the number of years. Also, wariness to humans may not be a purley learned behaviour but could actually be a genetic evolved trait (or partialy); birds that are less wary due to their genes get removed more often.

LiberalConservative:AverageAmericanGuy: In a scientific test, mice had their tails cut off. Generation after generation, these mice had their tails cut off.

After hundreds of generations, you know how many mice were born without tails?

None. None of them evolved the feature that their environment was forcing on them.

Now maybe these little birds in the wild evolved shorter wings over the course of 30 years. Or maybe they just got smart about staying away from cars on the highway. On the Galapagos Island, birds used to be indifferent or curious about humans. After their encounter with humans, they learned to be wary.

So are we talking about evolution in the space of 30 years, even when scientific studies have shown that environmental pressure does not influence such a change? Or are we talking about learned behavior?

Birds are smart. Bird-brained evolutionists, not so much.

Your comment was simply for fun right? Shrug. Birds may be smart but they are not able to postulate and investigate theories as the "bird-brained evolutionists" are. I recall papers where dandelion plants evolved shorter flower stalks in response to lawn mowing within a similar timeframe. Am pretty sure the dandelions did not learn new behaviour. So within 30 years would not be impossible. Regardless, would think it to be a question of number of generations rather than the number of years. Also, wariness to humans may not be a purley learned behaviour but could actually be a genetic evolved trait (or partialy); birds that are less wary due to their genes get removed more often.

You're arguing with an old fark Troll here. Just let it go, man. Colour him a troll colour and just ignore his babbling in the future.

Oh, it still applies to humans. Traffic and modern warfare have taken the place of cave bears and saber-tooth tigers, and we've still got disease and famine, and we're about to enter a world with a new and exiting climate.

...And it'll get real interesting when we start tinkering with our own genes.

AverageAmericanGuy:In a scientific test, mice had their tails cut off. Generation after generation, these mice had their tails cut off.

After hundreds of generations, you know how many mice were born without tails?

None. None of them evolved the feature that their environment was forcing on them.

Now maybe these little birds in the wild evolved shorter wings over the course of 30 years. Or maybe they just got smart about staying away from cars on the highway. On the Galapagos Island, birds used to be indifferent or curious about humans. After their encounter with humans, they learned to be wary.

So are we talking about evolution in the space of 30 years, even when scientific studies have shown that environmental pressure does not influence such a change? Or are we talking about learned behavior?

Free Radical:AverageAmericanGuy: In a scientific test, mice had their tails cut off. Generation after generation, these mice had their tails cut off.

After hundreds of generations, you know how many mice were born without tails?

None. None of them evolved the feature that their environment was forcing on them.

Now maybe these little birds in the wild evolved shorter wings over the course of 30 years. Or maybe they just got smart about staying away from cars on the highway. On the Galapagos Island, birds used to be indifferent or curious about humans. After their encounter with humans, they learned to be wary.

So are we talking about evolution in the space of 30 years, even when scientific studies have shown that environmental pressure does not influence such a change? Or are we talking about learned behavior?

Ed Grubermann:WhyteRaven74: It's not that they evolved shorter wings, it's that having shorter wings is in the given environment more advantageous for survival. Thus those individuals with short wings are more likely to reproduce and reproduce more often, leading to even more short winged individuals in the population. And that change in the frequency of a trait in response to an environmental pressure is what evolution is.

Ergo: they evolved shorter wings.

I am a creationist and I agree with this explanation. I accept natural selection and/or artificial selection as a means of evolution over time. I just don't believe in evolution as the origin of the human species.

AverageAmericanGuy:In a scientific test, mice had their tails cut off. Generation after generation, these mice had their tails cut off.

After hundreds of generations, you know how many mice were born without tails?

None. None of them evolved the feature that their environment was forcing on them.

Now maybe these little birds in the wild evolved shorter wings over the course of 30 years. Or maybe they just got smart about staying away from cars on the highway. On the Galapagos Island, birds used to be indifferent or curious about humans. After their encounter with humans, they learned to be wary.

So are we talking about evolution in the space of 30 years, even when scientific studies have shown that environmental pressure does not influence such a change? Or are we talking about learned behavior?

ltomberry:I am a creationist and I agree with this explanation. I accept natural selection and/or artificial selection as a means of evolution over time. I just don't believe in evolution as the origin of the human species.

Why not? What other explanation is there for the kludge-fest that is the human body? The spine is great for swimming creatures, who first evolved it, but it's crap for a vertical land animal ...and to repeat myself from another thread: External testicles? What all-knowing, all-powerful, all-loving god would give us external testicles? That alone is proof against Genesis.

If the human body was designed, the designer must have been a retard or a sadist.

Ed Grubermann:WhyteRaven74: It's not that they evolved shorter wings, it's that having shorter wings is in the given environment more advantageous for survival. Thus those individuals with short wings are more likely to reproduce and reproduce more often, leading to even more short winged individuals in the population. And that change in the frequency of a trait in response to an environmental pressure is what evolution is.

Ergo: they evolved shorter wings.

Yes, but not TO accomplish goal x.

They didn't gain shorter wings, rather they had their economic diversity trimmed by environmental pressures.